FACTBOX

Three of seven Metro councilors are scheduled today to
oppose a proposed Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia
River, a potentially significant blow to a federally backed
$4.2 billion effort to untangle congestion in one of the
West Coast's worst bottlenecks.

The resolution calls for charging tolls on the current
bridge between Portland and Vancouver, generating money to
earthquake-proof the structure, make on-ramps safer and
boost mass transit. The tolls would discourage use of the
bridge at rush hour, relieving some congestion. Then in a
few years, officials would consider a new bridge with
additional lanes for cars and trucks.

"That would give us the information we don't have
right now, which is how would people react to having to pay
for the project?" said Carlotta Collette, one of the
three councilors opposing a new bridge. Councilors Robert
Liberty and Carl Hosticka also signed the resolution.

The resolution reflects growing concern that a new bridge --
by increasing capacity -- would eventually create new
congestion and promote sprawling development. Until now,
Liberty appeared to be the only elected official calling for
a dramatically different solution.

The Columbia River Crossing, as the proposed span is known,
is intended to relieve congestion and improve safety and
mass transit on the five-mile stretch of highway that
connects Oregon and Washington. Unblocking the bottleneck is
especially vital to Clark County commuters and to truckers,
who move vast amounts of freight up and down the West Coast
on I-5.

Oregon and Washington have pitched five alternative bridge
solutions, all up for review. One is to do nothing. But the
most widely favored plan would replace the existing six-lane
bridge with a new 12-lane span, a light-rail extension to
Vancouver and renovation of six highway interchanges. That
plan would significantly increase highway capacity.

The resolution is scheduled to be presented at a Metro
Council work session at 2 p.m. today at the Metro Regional
Center, 600 N.E. Grand Ave. A vote on the resolution is not
anticipated until June 5, and final decisions on the bridge
project are still weeks away.

But today's resolution calls into question the
long-standing perception that the project was sure to win
majority support of all eight public agencies in Oregon and
Washington that have veto power over the project.
Supporters, including Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Portland
Business Alliance, may have a tougher fight on their hands
than was expected.

Bridge backers outraged

The move has sparked outrage among bridge supporters.

Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor
Association, which represents freight and neighborhood
interests in North Portland, said the proposal flies in the
face of a delicate political balance. Oregon leaders rightly
want light rail extended to Clark County, he said, but
leaders in southwest Washington won't accept rail
without more lanes for freight and automobiles.

"For Oregon to say Clark County needs light rail and
not a bridge is just a little bit on the arrogant
side," Collier said. "This is teamwork. We're
trying to put this project together as a group."

However, the resolution was encouraging to Jill Fuglister,
co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a group
that was an early opponent of the bridge project. The
councilors' proposal calls for a phased-in approach
similar to what the coalition and other critics have been
calling for.

The coalition has argued that worrisome information about
climate change and a recent trend of motorists driving less
in the face of high gas prices have diminished the need for
a new bridge.

"We actually have to pause and think of a different
approach," Fuglister said. "So that's good
news that there are folks that have the power to make a
different approach happen."

A 60-day public comment period on the bridge project's
environmental impact statement ends July 1. The coalition
and 12 other groups last week asked for a 60-day extension
of the comment period.

Liberty and Hosticka were out of the country at a conference
late last week. But Collette has been receiving phone calls
from concerned business owners about the trio's
proposal.

"They saw the resolution as an anti-bridge resolution,
and I understand how they could," she said. "From
my perspective, it's a resolution about having a better
conversation and a bigger conversation, and how we as Metro
respond to the people who have environmental concerns about
this project."

The resolution also calls for building a small bridge to
connect North Portland to Hayden Island.

Number of lanes an issue

A major issue is how many lanes are necessary on the bridge.

Highway engineers on the project have proposed three lanes
in each direction that would carry traffic through the
bridge area, about the same as the existing six-lane bridge
and in line with a regional policy of having no more than
six total through lanes on area highways. They also have
planned for three auxiliary lanes in each direction --
relatively short lanes of less than a mile long that are
intended to carry traffic from one on-ramp to a nearby
off-ramp.

Critics have called the 12-lane plan a recipe for more
driving and sprawling growth in Clark County. State highway
engineers say they add minimal capacity, and they would cut
down on merging and weaving of traffic, which increases the
accident rate in the area.

Some bridge supporters, such as Metro Councilor Rex
Burkholder, have called for more information on whether the
auxiliary lanes would provide so much congestion relief that
they would promote sprawl.

In a memo to the council, Richard Brandman, Metro deputy
planning director, said the number of lanes is among several
issues that are scheduled to be decided after this
summer's votes on the project's need, alignment
and mass transit option. Those issues include tolling rates,
bicycle and pedestrian path design and designs of the six
highway interchange renovations.

Burkholder has proposed his own resolution, which would
endorse light rail and six total through lanes -- and call
for the number of auxiliary lanes to be determined with
local officials later.

The resolutions would direct Burkholder on how to vote in
his role as a member of a 39-member Columbia River Crossing
Task Force, which has been advising the Oregon and
Washington transportation departments on what to do about
the corridor for about two years.

The task force is expected to vote June 24 on which of the
five alternatives should be the locally preferred option.
Subsequent votes are expected this summer by the Portland
and Vancouver city councils, transit agencies from both
areas, regional planning agencies for both areas and the
Oregon and Washington transportation departments.

FACTBOX

Three of seven Metro councilors are scheduled today to
oppose a proposed Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia
River, a potentially significant blow to a federally backed
$4.2 billion effort to untangle congestion in one of the
West Coast's worst bottlenecks.

The resolution calls for charging tolls on the current
bridge between Portland and Vancouver, generating money to
earthquake-proof the structure, make on-ramps safer and
boost mass transit. The tolls would discourage use of the
bridge at rush hour, relieving some congestion. Then in a
few years, officials would consider a new bridge with
additional lanes for cars and trucks.

"That would give us the information we don't have
right now, which is how would people react to having to pay
for the project?" said Carlotta Collette, one of the
three councilors opposing a new bridge. Councilors Robert
Liberty and Carl Hosticka also signed the resolution.

The resolution reflects growing concern that a new bridge --
by increasing capacity -- would eventually create new
congestion and promote sprawling development. Until now,
Liberty appeared to be the only elected official calling for
a dramatically different solution.

The Columbia River Crossing, as the proposed span is known,
is intended to relieve congestion and improve safety and
mass transit on the five-mile stretch of highway that
connects Oregon and Washington. Unblocking the bottleneck is
especially vital to Clark County commuters and to truckers,
who move vast amounts of freight up and down the West Coast
on I-5.

Oregon and Washington have pitched five alternative bridge
solutions, all up for review. One is to do nothing. But the
most widely favored plan would replace the existing six-lane
bridge with a new 12-lane span, a light-rail extension to
Vancouver and renovation of six highway interchanges. That
plan would significantly increase highway capacity.

The resolution is scheduled to be presented at a Metro
Council work session at 2 p.m. today at the Metro Regional
Center, 600 N.E. Grand Ave. A vote on the resolution is not
anticipated until June 5, and final decisions on the bridge
project are still weeks away.

But today's resolution calls into question the
long-standing perception that the project was sure to win
majority support of all eight public agencies in Oregon and
Washington that have veto power over the project.
Supporters, including Gov. Ted Kulongoski and the Portland
Business Alliance, may have a tougher fight on their hands
than was expected.

Bridge backers outraged

The move has sparked outrage among bridge supporters.

Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor
Association, which represents freight and neighborhood
interests in North Portland, said the proposal flies in the
face of a delicate political balance. Oregon leaders rightly
want light rail extended to Clark County, he said, but
leaders in southwest Washington won't accept rail
without more lanes for freight and automobiles.

"For Oregon to say Clark County needs light rail and
not a bridge is just a little bit on the arrogant
side," Collier said. "This is teamwork. We're
trying to put this project together as a group."

However, the resolution was encouraging to Jill Fuglister,
co-director of the Coalition for a Livable Future, a group
that was an early opponent of the bridge project. The
councilors' proposal calls for a phased-in approach
similar to what the coalition and other critics have been
calling for.

The coalition has argued that worrisome information about
climate change and a recent trend of motorists driving less
in the face of high gas prices have diminished the need for
a new bridge.

"We actually have to pause and think of a different
approach," Fuglister said. "So that's good
news that there are folks that have the power to make a
different approach happen."

A 60-day public comment period on the bridge project's
environmental impact statement ends July 1. The coalition
and 12 other groups last week asked for a 60-day extension
of the comment period.

Liberty and Hosticka were out of the country at a conference
late last week. But Collette has been receiving phone calls
from concerned business owners about the trio's
proposal.

"They saw the resolution as an anti-bridge resolution,
and I understand how they could," she said. "From
my perspective, it's a resolution about having a better
conversation and a bigger conversation, and how we as Metro
respond to the people who have environmental concerns about
this project."

The resolution also calls for building a small bridge to
connect North Portland to Hayden Island.

Number of lanes an issue

A major issue is how many lanes are necessary on the bridge.

Highway engineers on the project have proposed three lanes
in each direction that would carry traffic through the
bridge area, about the same as the existing six-lane bridge
and in line with a regional policy of having no more than
six total through lanes on area highways. They also have
planned for three auxiliary lanes in each direction --
relatively short lanes of less than a mile long that are
intended to carry traffic from one on-ramp to a nearby
off-ramp.

Critics have called the 12-lane plan a recipe for more
driving and sprawling growth in Clark County. State highway
engineers say they add minimal capacity, and they would cut
down on merging and weaving of traffic, which increases the
accident rate in the area.

Some bridge supporters, such as Metro Councilor Rex
Burkholder, have called for more information on whether the
auxiliary lanes would provide so much congestion relief that
they would promote sprawl.

In a memo to the council, Richard Brandman, Metro deputy
planning director, said the number of lanes is among several
issues that are scheduled to be decided after this
summer's votes on the project's need, alignment
and mass transit option. Those issues include tolling rates,
bicycle and pedestrian path design and designs of the six
highway interchange renovations.

Burkholder has proposed his own resolution, which would
endorse light rail and six total through lanes -- and call
for the number of auxiliary lanes to be determined with
local officials later.

The resolutions would direct Burkholder on how to vote in
his role as a member of a 39-member Columbia River Crossing
Task Force, which has been advising the Oregon and
Washington transportation departments on what to do about
the corridor for about two years.

The task force is expected to vote June 24 on which of the
five alternatives should be the locally preferred option.
Subsequent votes are expected this summer by the Portland
and Vancouver city councils, transit agencies from both
areas, regional planning agencies for both areas and the
Oregon and Washington transportation departments.